[TobyD]

Matt your characterisation of the Conservative membership may have a grain of two of truth about it, but I agree with Chris that there is a very nasty streak in the upper ranks of the labour party. I'm not so sure they want a soft Brexit at all, I suspect that they'd really like a no deal Brexit, curated by the conservative government, followed by an election where they could propound regressive Marxist economics as a cure for the catastrophe the UK would be mired in. There is an unpleasant reek of some being more equal than others about Corbyns clique.

[Oldmanmatt]

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-08-21

[tc]

Once the Tory party's purpose was to be the unpopular grown up and clean up the labour party's financial mess after they'd been in government

Here's an alternative view of that:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/18/labour-economic-crisis-tories

And one more, from a different source:

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/14006/economics/can-labour-be-blamed-for-the-economic-crisis/

If we had known that the financial crisis was about to happen then we could argue that Labour should have delayed some of the pre-crisis spending to help in buffering the impact of the recession. But this is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. So on this basis, it is unfair to say that Labour “overspent”. Unless you choose to believe the Tory propaganda machine of course. I don't.

[SamT]

I think its well known by anyone who isn't completely blinkered in thier view point, that the economic crisis was very little to do with New Labour and their spending within the UK, and everything to do with the US sub prime housing markets and the way neo capitalism works, the seeds of which were sown by Thatcher/Ragan.

This documentary  - details it all very well (if you've not seen it, its well worth a watch, but pretty depressing really)

[Oldmanmatt]

I don’t think Chris was referring to “The” financial crisis, more the perception that Labour will be profligate whilst in power and Tories prudent.
Not something borne out by the record though. They tend to spend differently, but neither seem to manage to balance the books.

[tc]

...followed by an election where they could propound regressive Marxist economics...

The Tory attack dogs seem to take great delight in branding Corbyn "a Marxist". It certainly plays well with the Telegraph and Mail readers. In a similar vein, arguing that Corbyn is a hard-Left Trotskyite who wants to nationalise everything and poses a threat to national security and the UK economy does not work with me. Just because he is from the most socialist part of a socialist party doesn't mean he is "a Marxist" or has neo-Communist beliefs.

What's your objection to Marxist economics anyway?

[andy popp]

I don’t think Chris was referring to “The” financial crisis, more the perception that Labour will be profligate whilst in power and Tories prudent.
Not something borne out by the record though. They tend to spend differently, but neither seem to manage to balance the books.

This is a favorite Republican theme too, even though in recent decades its the GOP that has been totally reckless and the Democrats responsible (relatively speaking).

[chris j]

SamT, tc, i was looking a little further back towards the 70's, the IMF incident etc. Probably not entirely fair still but from the perspective i was brought up in, the perception was labour borrowed and spent their way to bankruptcy and the Tories would then have to be the responsible meanies balancing the books, for which the electorate was never grateful and had a short memory. Your perspective may of course be different.

[Oldmanmatt]

It’s slightly odd, this difference in perception, say “Labour”  and some think Blair and boom and good times; and I think Callaghan or Foot and “Winters of discontent” and power cuts and not enough food and no money. My father’s Engineering plant closing and the collapse. Bins unemptied and Firemen on strike.
 (if I said “Green Goddess” would you know what I meant)?

I think 2008 was a picnic compared to the 70’s and the latter was less global and far more a product of Labour policy.

[chris j]

 arguing that Corbyn is a hard-Left Trotskyite who wants to nationalise everything and poses a threat to national security and the UK economy

It would be harder to argue that if his team didn't keep coming out with proposals that they're going to nationalise utilities and trains without paying market value,  nationalise 10% of all large companies 'for the workers' (while a readng of the small print showed 80% of the money would go directly to the treasury) and basically f*ck everyone not expecting to retire on a public sector pension.

Not to mention tax your children's xmas presents if granny gives them a cheque!

[chris j]

PS if he doesn't want to be thought of as a neo communist (whatever one of those might be), maybe he shouldn't have recent members of the communist party in his team!

[andy popp]

I think 2008 was a picnic compared to the 70’s and the latter was less global and far more a product of Labour policy.

Not to exonerate Labour (or Tory) governments of the 1970s but there was a strong global element to the events and experiences of that decade - which is why the US experienced very similar problems to the UK (the beginning of deindustrialization, stagflation etc.). The two oil price shocks were felt globally of course, as were the effects of industrialization in the developing world and coming of the open door policy in China in 1978. And however bad some personal experiences may have been in the 70s 2008 was of a vastly greater scale (and a much greater threat to the world).

[Will Hunt]

I'm all for the shaking up of certain industries which seem to have chronic failings - rail springs to mind - however the notion that all ills can be fixed by re-nationalisation seems completely fanatical in its ideological simplicity.

Corbyn might say he wants to nationalise the water industry (in which I work), but doesn't really explain how this will improve the lot of the customer other than some vagueries about reducing bills. I don't believe for a second that you can maintain or improve the level of service provided and reduce bills simply by nationalising an industry.

What really irked me was a Corbyn fanatic who I climb with (and who is a lovely man) who insisted and insisted that the (massive) improvement in river quality that we have seen over the last 30 years was completely down to industrial decline (which certainly is a factor) and nothing to do with water industry investment. This is an opinion that goes beyond common ignorance and steps firmly into obtuseness. We are able to scientifically prove what benefits our investment has delivered through the modelling work that we do. But he didn't want to know that.

[tomtom]

The water industry is an especially poor example of privatisation - as it creates no competition - simply a series of monopolies. As long as they tick the regulators boxes all is fine and dandy.

Sure - they perform, but they also take a hefty chunk of OUR £££ as their profit. The foreign governments and pension companies who invest in them/own them are not stupid.

The water privatisation also leads to chaotic cycles of AMP funding (that you are well aware of) that limits long term planning focusing everything into 5 year cycles. Jobs,careers, contracts etc,. All revolve around this time scale.

So - despite 20 years (or more?) of privatisation there are still phenomenally high rates of water leakage in the networks (too tricky/risky for a private company to tackle?) and very low take up rates of water meters (that were unofficially discouraged by water companies as they revealed leakage rates - I was led to believe by a former YW employee...).

Even the regulation is bullshit - OFWAT rely on inspectors/reviewers who are all ex water industry employees...

I spoke about this to a local Tory MP once - he said “privatisation is only as good as the regulation” which is true but also a cop out....

Anyway - after that mini correction, in general the genie of privatisation is well out of the lamp (er where am I going... :D ) and so I think there is only so much a Labour govt would - or more importantly could do. 

[Oldmanmatt]

Well worth five minutes:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1561395335

[duncan]

It’s slightly odd, this difference in perception, say “Labour”  and some think Blair and boom and good times; and I think Callaghan or Foot and “Winters of discontent” and power cuts and not enough food and no money.

The 1970s power cuts and associated shortages mostly occurred in 1972-1974 under by the Conservatives. Which brings us back to perception versus reality.

[tc]

SamT, tc, i was looking a little further back towards the 70's, the IMF incident etc. Probably not entirely fair still but from the perspective i was brought up in, the perception was labour borrowed and spent their way to bankruptcy and the Tories would then have to be the responsible meanies balancing the books, for which the electorate was never grateful and had a short memory. Your perspective may of course be different.

It is.
Borrowing from the IMF in 1976 was the result of a whole range of problems, and is not merely attributable to the then Labour government's profligacy. True, there was a belief that it was possible to spend your way out of recession by cutting taxes and increasing government spending, but external (and historical) issues played a huge part. Britain had emerged from WW2 with heavy debts and an unsustainable initial exchange rate in the Bretton Woods system.In the early 1970s, the oil producers of Opec had shocked the global economy with dramatic price increases. The US pulled the plug on the Bretton Woods system of managed exchange rates. The miners went on strike. The UK began to experience stagflation. And so on and so forth...
Conservative policies then caused the opposite problem of too high an exchange rate, which devastated Britain’s manufacturing base.

[tc]

 arguing that Corbyn is a hard-Left Trotskyite who wants to nationalise everything and poses a threat to national security and the UK economy

Not to mention tax your children's xmas presents if granny gives them a cheque!

On what do you base that particular accusation? It looks suspiciously like a Daily Mail headline.

[Will Hunt]

Good knowledge, TT. The industry is indeed not without it's flaws. My area of interest is environmental regulation so you probably understand the policy issues around finance better than I do (none of this is the company line) but I'd say the following:

The water industry is an especially poor example of privatisation - as it creates no competition - simply a series of monopolies. As long as they tick the regulators boxes all is fine and dandy.

Competition is coming. Retail competition is already a thing and domestic competition will follow, I think. I'm not sure what economic savings this will provide for customers. I don't think this isn't anything that would be changed by nationalisation.

Sure - they perform, but they also take a hefty chunk of OUR £££ as their profit. The foreign governments and pension companies who invest in them/own them are not stupid.

I see this in a similar way to the foreign bank that has invested in me and allowed me to buy a house. I've no particular view or knowledge about how good a deal we've got with the investors but their money has led to big improvements in performance which are not to be sniffed at.

The water privatisation also leads to chaotic cycles of AMP funding (that you are well aware of) that limits long term planning focusing everything into 5 year cycles. Jobs,careers, contracts etc,. All revolve around this time scale.

We do do long term planning, but quite a lot of our investment is dependent upon the political climate of the day and legislation that comes down the track. I'm not sure what makes the AMP cycle chaotic? Slow maybe, but forward planning is important to give customers more certainty about what they'll be paying in the future.

So - despite 20 30 years (or more?) of privatisation there are still phenomenally high rates of water leakage in the networks (too tricky/risky for a private company to tackle?)

I'm not sure why a nationalised industry would be expected to do better on leakage than private. The regulatory environment is geared up to reward/punish over/under performance on this. Leakage certainly used to be rife in the bad old days. It's worth bearing in mind that 0 leakage is never going to happen, so there will inevitably be a limit at which leakage is deemed acceptable.

Even the regulation is bullshit - OFWAT rely on inspectors/reviewers who are all ex water industry employees...

Can't really see a problem with this. The point is that they are ex employees. Doesn't seem surprising. I'd rather the regulators actually had a good working knowledge of the industry. A nationalised industry will still need to be regulated.

Anyway - after that mini correction, in general the genie of privatisation is well out of the lamp (er where am I going... :D ) and so I think there is only so much a Labour govt would - or more importantly could do.

There's been talk of a buy-out at less than market rate. I dread to think what that might mean for investment in this country in the future.

[chris j]

On what do you base that particular accusation? It looks suspiciously like a Daily Mail headline.

Thank you,  i tried! 

I'm sure the lifetime gift allowance won't work like that though. To start with at least.

[TobyD]

...followed by an election where they could propound regressive Marxist economics...

The Tory attack dogs seem to take great delight in branding Corbyn "a Marxist". It certainly plays well with the Telegraph and Mail readers. In a similar vein, arguing that Corbyn is a hard-Left Trotskyite who wants to nationalise everything and poses a threat to national security and the UK economy does not work with me. Just because he is from the most socialist part of a socialist party doesn't mean he is "a Marxist" or has neo-Communist beliefs.

What's your objection to Marxist economics anyway?

They don't work? Venezuela, Cuba, the USSR... hardly models of dynamic growth which results in a high quality of life and wealth of opportunity for their citizens are they? The biggest economic success of the last 100 or so years is clearly the USA,  which appears to be rather the opposite.  You seem to react to any criticism of Corbyn with a knee jerk  'Tory' or 'Daily Mail' cry, I don't think either contributes to a constructive argument.
I dislike Corbyn because many of his colleagues are either blind to or enthusiasts of antisemitism,  misogyny and a pursuit of ideology above national interests. 
I do not think that this is unique to the Labour party, the eurosceptic contingent of the Conservative party is rather obviously guilty of at least one of those. 
Both parties have many excellent MPs,  who are really interested in trying to make people's lives better,  they just don't happen to be leading them.

[TobyD]

I was Boris Johnson’s boss: he is utterly unfit to be prime minister

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Wow, I don't like Johnson,  but Hastings really doesn't....

[andy popp]

The biggest economic success of the last 100 or so years is clearly the USA

I think this is far from clear.

[Oldmanmatt]

The biggest economic success of the last 100 or so years is clearly the USA

I think this far from clear.

Depends if you come from Washington state, or Louisiana...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings

[chris j]

Not to mention tax your children's xmas presents if granny gives them a cheque!

On what do you base that particular accusation? It looks suspiciously like a Daily Mail headline.

Thank you,  i tried! 

I'm sure the lifetime gift allowance won't work like that though. To start with at least.

Doh, i can't do quotes on my tablet, apologies for last nights incompetence, fixed above (more or less)